Farm bill insurance blasted as too costly
A proposed supplemental crop insurance program included in the pending farm bills in both the House and Senate would have boosted windfall profits for farm businesses and increased federally subsidized insurance payouts by $6.8 billion in 2012, according to a new report released Thursday by Environmental Working Group (EWG).
The report, “Pumped Up: How Supplemental Insurance Could Bulk Up Farm Subsidies,” by agricultural economist Bruce Babcock, analyzes how the insurance plan, known as the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), would have performed in 2012 if it had been in place during that drought-plagued year.
The proposal’s supporters on Capitol Hill hail SCO as reform because it would replace the widely discredited direct payments program and, they say, trigger payouts only when a farmer has an actual loss. EWG disagrees and intends to sway members of Congress into changing or removing the current safety-net program.
Babcock’s analysis, however, shows that adding SCO on top of subsidized crop insurance policies would have actually resulted in payouts to policyholders that are far larger than direct payments—even if they had suffered little or no financial loss, according to EWG.
“At a time when Congress is desperately trying to cut the federal deficit, it does not make sense to start a new program that does not solve any actual problem facing agriculture, does not improve the efficiency of government programs and is so prone to delivering windfall gains,” Babcock wrote.
Focusing on the example of a typical farmer in Champaign County, Ill., Babcock claims that the combination of revenue protection (the most heavily subsidized insurance coverage) and SCO would have generated payouts ranging from $172,000 to $322,000 to farm businesses that suffered little if any revenue loss because of the drought. Moreover, he contends that the windfall gains for farmers would have added another $6.8 billion in total crop insurance payouts—on top of the $17 billion in payouts actually made in 2012. Most of the payouts would have been at taxpayers’ expense.
“SCO, it turns out, would be just another way to send cash to farm businesses regardless of need but with better optics,” said Craig Cox, EWG’s senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources. “Swapping this program for direct payments is an expensive and cynical game of bait and switch masquerading as reform.”
SCO is designed to cover the so-called “shallow losses” that are smaller than the deductibles on a grower’s existing crop insurance policy. But Babcock and EWG contends there is no economic justification—and none has been claimed—for having taxpayers take on even more of the risks of crop production.
- New platform to simplify inventory and fertilizer sales
- Cheminova’s dimethoate 4E receives 2(EE) recommendation
- Ag markets proved rather volatile again Thursday
- Potential impact of climate change on rangeland plants
- Ag markets proved decidedly mixed again Thursday morning
- Economy, job market reaps benefits from RFS
- Julie Borlaug says biotech is necessary in fight against hunger
- Commentary: Blame anti-GMO groups for deaths
- What does “sustainable” food and agriculture really mean?
- Ohio bill to require certification to apply fertilizer
- FCC aims to offer high-speed internet to rural America
- Carbon-dioxide hurts nitrogen assimilation by plants